September 23, 2025 • 32 mins
One month after the murder of Iryna Zarutska on Charlotte’s light rail, the North Carolina Senate has passed Iryna’s Law, with Sen. Danny Britt providing remarks in support. The legislation now heads to the House for the next steps in the General Assembly process. Meanwhile, a federal appeals court has unsealed video footage connected to a 2019 Charlotte law enforcement shooting, drawing renewed public interest.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
It's five oh five and welcome into a Tuesday edition
of the Carolina Journal News Hour, News Talk eleven ten
ninety nine three WBT. I'm Nick Craig. A good morning
to you. As we predicted yesterday, it was a busy day,
a busy Monday in the North Carolina General Assembly, as
lawmakers in both the House and the Senate returned to Raleigh,
(00:29):
as they will do so a couple more times before
the end of the year and wrapping up the long
session at the end of twenty twenty five. Yesterday, September
the twenty second, marking one month after the murder of
Irena Zaruska, a twenty three year old Ukrainian refugee who
was murdered on the Charlotte light rail one month ago yesterday,
(00:51):
and as we have been previewing over the last a
week and a half or so, lawmakers in Raleigh are
moving forth with House Bill three oh seven, also known
as Arena's Law. This is set to address some of
the issues that could have allowed Zaruska to still be
alive today, including dealing with a variety of criminal justice
(01:11):
issues that exist throughout the North Carolina judicial system, as
well as things that are relevant in the wake of
the murder of conservative activists Charlie Kirk, with those both
making and both state national international headlines that several issues
have arisen in state and local government, including tightening pre
trial conditions for the release of violent offenders, eliminating cash
(01:35):
lists bail, addressing the mental health crisis in the criminal
justice system, and removing roadblocks to the death penalty. That's
a big portion of this in North Carolina. The bill
addresses most of those concerns. It creates a new category
of violent offenses, requires GPS monitoring house arrests or secured
(01:55):
bond for those accused, and adds as well as adding
a capital of punishments or capital felonies on public transportation
to the list of aggregating factors that make it defendant
eligible for the death penalty. Republican leaders say these changes
are designed to ensure that violent repeat offenders remain off
(02:17):
the streets while holding magistrates and judges more accountable for
released decisions that they might make. Senator Danny Britt, who
is the Republican out of Hope County, introduced this legislation
in the Senate Judiciary Committee, where it was first introduced
in Raleigh yesterday. This is how the Senator from Hope
County described the legislation.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
Thank you, mister Chairman and members.
Speaker 3 (02:41):
This bill is largely in response to the incident that
happened in Mecklenburg County on the Charlotte mass Transit system.
And this is in House built three zero seven what
has been called IRENA's Law. What this deals with is
pre trial release conditions under various certain circumstances. Creates, or
it basically does a way with written promises to appear.
(03:04):
It creates a new concept of what would be considered
a violent offense. In circumstances where there is a violent offense,
there would be a rebuttable presumption that no pre trial
released would be granted based on a danger analysis. If
the judicial official does determine pre trial release is appropriate,
the following would apply. First arrest, the only option is
either a secure bond or house arrest with monitoring. Second
(03:27):
or subsequent only option is house arrest with monitoring. If
a defendant has been convicted of three or more offenses
Class one Misterman or higher within the ten years prior
to then the only option is secured bond along with
house arrest with monitoring. Many counties do not already have
the GPS monitoring system within their pre trial release or
(03:47):
their shares department. This would allow for individuals to our
counties who do not have those systems established to contract
with a private vendor, by which the defender would pay
for that ankle monitoring device that they were placed out
on pre trial release with a monitor. Law is clarified
to ensure that judicial official reviews and considers defendan's criminal
(04:10):
history before setting conditions of pre trial release. Laws modified
so that judicial official must make written findings of fact
explaining the reasons why the official determined the conditions of release.
In each case. If a judge or magistrate fails to
make these written findings, it would be ground for suspension.
It would allow the Chief Justice, Supreme Court or Chief
(04:30):
District Court judge to initiate suspension proceedings for magistrates. Right now,
only a chief district Court judge could suspend. As for
mental health evaluations, it creates a protocol under which judicial
official will be required to order a mental health evaluation
if the defendis charge with a violent offense and has
been involuntarily committed within the last three years, or the
defendant's charged with any offense and judicial official has costs
(04:53):
to believe the defendant of suffering from a mental health crisis.
The Collaboratory will study the intersection of mental health and
the system in North Carolina's We all realize that there
is a connection. There's more to do on this topic.
We had a rather short window to do what we
did in this bill here. We believe this does make
North Carolina safer and does help to promote law and
(05:14):
order and state of North Carolina, but we do have
more work to do on involuntary commitments and mental health
in the space.
Speaker 2 (05:20):
Of the criminal justice system.
Speaker 3 (05:22):
This also would modify laws related to aggravating factors. When
someone is on trial for first three murder, prior to
a decision that the state is going to precede capital,
one of the arguments they must make to the court
or that certain aggravating factors exists.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
To be able to have the case declared capital.
Speaker 3 (05:38):
This ads an aggravating factor that if the incident took
place on mass transit, that would be considered an aggravating
factor by which Rule twenty four could be granted. It
also modifies death penalty proceedings that appeals and post convictions
mrs must be heard within twenty four months of the
date they have been filed. The oldest appeal currently is
(06:01):
a nineteen eighty five murder case in the say.
Speaker 2 (06:03):
Of North Carolina.
Speaker 3 (06:05):
And these murder appeals are simply going on too long
without a family ever seeing justice for their loved one,
and this is an effort to try to speed these up.
Any case that is already penning appeal, if appeal has
already been filed.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
They'll have twenty four months as well.
Speaker 3 (06:23):
From passage of this law, there was a modification in
what was in the original draft that we made. Current
law requires defendants lack of capacity to proceed the court
dismiss charges. This occurs in any time the defendants will
not regain capacity defendant has been incarcerated beyond maximum sentence
for the underlying sentence or ten years for any failony. Essentially,
if someone's declared it incompetent, as longest we can hold
(06:45):
them if they are violent is up to ten years.
This provides a process for after that ten year period,
the district attorney can have the individual viewed again and
determined rather not further involuntary commitment is necessary.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
That Senator Danny Britt in Raleigh yesterday, more particularly the
Senate Judiciary Committee describing some of the details of House
Built three oh seven again the short name on that
arena's law. One of the big things that came up
with throughout discussion yesterday in Raleigh was the death penalty. Now,
there should not be a surprise or secret to anybody.
(07:19):
We heard back in a press conference a couple of
weeks ago, which did include the leader of the North
Carolina Senate in Phil Berger and the leader of the
North Carolina House in Deston Hall, that lawmakers would move
forward to essentially reinstate the death penalty in North Carolina.
And that is exactly one of the things added to
House Built three oh seven. It removes roadblocks that have
(07:40):
hindered the death penalty in North Carolina for close to
twenty years. That's according to a press release from Speaker Deston'
Deston Hall's office. Currently, the death penalty appeal can sit indefinitely.
Any appeal or motion filed more than twenty four months
ago now must be scheduled for a hearing date no
later than December of twenty twenty six, with a hearing
(08:02):
taking place on or before December twenty twenty seven, as
required by this bill. For death penalty cases, hearings must
be held in the county in which the offender was
originally convicted. Previously, all of those hearings took place in Raleigh,
our state capital. Lawmakers said, in an attempt to allow
to streamline this process to some extent, that the whole group,
(08:26):
including the individual in question, does not have to travel
to the state capitol, which can be a major burden
on local prosecutors, law enforcement, and jails, as the transferring
of that individual is a pretty heavy lift. We've got
some additional details from the Senate floor. It was a
busy evening as lawmakers didn't wrap up until well after
seven pm last night debating this legislation. Will continue the
(08:49):
details coming up here in just a few minutes as
we roll on with the Carolina Journal News Hour. It's
twenty one minutes past the hour. Welcome back to the
Carolina Journal News our newstock eleven, ten ninety nine to
three WBT. We are continuing our coverage this morning of
a busy day in Raleigh yesterday for the North Carolina
(09:13):
General Assembly. As lawmakers through the rest of the year
will be back for a couple of days at the
end of each month, leading all the way up until
the new year House spill three to seven. It was
the big topic of discussion yesterday, at least on the
Senate side where all of the activity happened. The House
did gavel in at noon in a skeleton session. Just
(09:35):
a couple of individuals, including Representative Jared Lowry, presiding over
the House talked about him yesterday as he announced that
he would be leaving the General Assembly at the end
of October to take a job in Washington, d C.
With the Trump administration. It's not immediately clear, but rumor
has it that the full House will be back, and
it's some form more fashion today. So as we look
(09:56):
at Housepill three oh seven, this is IRENA's law. It
was went through all of the process in the Senate yesterday,
and this is a wide sweeping bill, more than seventeen pages,
dealing with a variety of issues, including pre trial release
and documents that need to be filed by magistrates or
judges when they allow violent or repeat offenders a pre
(10:19):
trial release, GPS, monitoring house arrests or secured bond for
those accused of violent offenses. Which there's been some new
additions to that, some other things including committing a capital
felony on public transit that has been added to the
list of aggravated factors that can make a defendant eligible
(10:40):
for the death penalty, and a variety of other issues.
One of the big topics of debate and what really
slowed down the North Carolina Senate last night, was discussions
on reinstituting or essentially allowing the death penalty to continue
in North Carolina. It has been on the books and
it is illegal in the state as a form of punishment. However,
(11:01):
that process has essentially been blocked for the last twenty
years due to an appeal process in which the appeal
can set sit indefinitely and that has been blocking and
essentially but a major roadblock in place for the death penalty.
The Senate did adopt several amendments introduced, including an amendment
(11:22):
introduced by Senate Leader Phil Berger that would establish lethal
injection as the primary default method of execution in the
state of North Carolina. This was not without controversy from Democrats.
Senator Greg Meyer, the Democrat out of Caswell County, raised
several concerns about alternative methods of execution with the death
(11:43):
penalty or capital punishment, including the electric chair and firing squad,
neither of which were introduced to as amendments. To to
avoid additional delays, at Burger's amendment directs the Department of
Adult Corrections to implement alternative execution methods if a court
order or other administrative barrier prevents lethal injection. It also
(12:06):
imposes deadlines for adopting new methods to ensure that the
Stegin administration is held accountable. And finally, the amendment stipulates
that any case in which a trial court rules a
method of execution unconstitutional, it may be appealed directly to
the North Carolina Supreme Court for some expedition to take
(12:27):
place there. Senate Leader Phil Berger said in a press
release following the vote, quote, for nearly two decades, judicial
and administrative roadblocks have stopped true justice for victims, and
it's time for that to end. During my time in
the Senate, I've worked to find ways to restart the
death penalty, but judges, activist doctors, and weak on crime
(12:50):
politicians have placed hurdle after hurdle in the way. I
hope we can finally get justice for victims' families and
for the people of North Carolina. House Bill three oh seven,
also known as IRENA's Law, would also classify committing a
capital felony against a victim using public transportation as an
(13:10):
aggravating factor in death penalty cases. This provision ensures that
prosecutors can seek and courts can impose the death penalty
without hesitation in cases similar to the one that happened
just over one month ago that claimed the life of
twenty three year old Irena Zaruska. Additionally, the bill would
clarify that judicial officials must review and consider a defendant's
(13:35):
criminal history before setting pre trial release conditions. It would
also require the judicial official to make written findings a
fact explaining the reason for determining that that pre trial
released condition was justified. In each and every case, failure
by a judge or magistrate to make these required findings
(13:57):
would in fact, be grounds for removal. The bill further
allows the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court or the
chief District Court judge to initiate suspension proceedings for magistrates
that do not follow the process laid out in House
three TOZH seven, And finally, it directs the North Carolina
Collaboratory to study the intersection of mental health and the
(14:20):
justice system in North Carolina for both adults and juveniles,
examine the availability of house arrests as a condition of
pre trial release, and evaluate alternative methods of execution beyond
those currently authorized in North Carolina. The Collaboratory would be
required to have a preliminary draft to the General Assembly
(14:41):
by next year and a final study sometime in twenty
twenty seven. With all of that set and as I noted,
this went will long into the night, well past seven
pm as lawmakers gabbled in Around noon yesterday, the final
passage of IRENA's law House Bill three zero EVAN was
twenty eight to eight. This is after multon the vast
(15:04):
majority of Democrat lawmakers in the Senate, because they were
incapable of were unable rather to get their way on
any of their amendments, decided to just walk out of
the chamber and not vote either way on the legislation.
So it did pass twenty eight to eight, and now
it moves over to the North Carolina House where it
has officially been calendared for this morning, September the twenty third.
(15:28):
Again not immediately clear how quickly that legislation will be
taken up by the North Carolina House. However, it is
something that lawmakers promised, including House Speaker Destin Hall in
that press conference with Phil Berger back a few weeks ago,
that they would be taking up in Raleigh. So we
will watch what happens in the House, and then, of course,
(15:49):
following any other law passed in North Carolina or any
other legislation, I should say, it will make its way
to the Governor's desk if successful in the House, where
he will likely veto it, and it will have to
come back to the General Assembly for a series of
veto overrides. We will continue to track its progress throughout
the day today over on our website Carolina Journal dot com,
(16:11):
and of course we'll have the latest details coming up
for you tomorrow morning right here on the Carolina Journal
News Hour. It's five thirty five. Welcome back to the
Carolina Journal News Hour. News Stock eleven ten ninety nine
to three WBT. A search warrant gone wrong back in
(16:32):
twenty nineteen has been in the news over the last
couple of years at a variety of legal challenges. We
do have an update this morning to walk us through
some of those details. Mitch Koki of the John Locke
Foundation joins us on the Carolina Journal News Hour twenty nineteen. Mitch,
six years or so ago, a story out of Mecklenburg
County including a search warrant, law enforcement officers being shot.
(16:54):
A lot of information going on here. What's the latest
that you're tracking out of the courts.
Speaker 4 (16:59):
Yes, this was an incident that really arose out of
a law operation that certainly went sideways. A task force
involving multiple law enforcement officers from multiple departments was trying
to serve a search warrant on a suspect who was
accused of trafficking methanthhetamine. But what happened was when the
law officers arrived, there was some chaos that ensued, some
(17:24):
shooting that took place, and one of the officers, a
fellow named Clarence Belton, who was a Gastonian police officer,
got shot as he was trying to get away. He
got shot some more, and though he survived, he suffered
some very long lasting serious injuries that prevented him from
continuing his work in law enforcement, and so he sued.
(17:46):
One of the fellow officers, a woman named Heather Loveridge
from the Charlotte Meckleburg Police Department along with the City
of Charlotte, saying that there was a legal liability for
his injuries. You know, this case has been moving through
federal courts now for several years, and there was a
ruling back in February from the Fourth US Circuit Court
(18:08):
of Appeals that said that the trial judge was going
to have to take another look at whether Heather Leveridge
would get immunity in the case. The judge said no immunity,
that the case could go forward, but the Fourth Circuit,
in a unanimous ruling earlier this year, said the judge
didn't go through the specific analysis that's required to ensure
(18:29):
whether immunity is or is not possible in this case.
So the judge in the case, Max Cogburn, has to
go back and do the analysis to decide whether there's
going to be immunity. So that's one piece of this case.
But the most recent development, which should be very interesting
to people who are fans of the First Amendment and
to media access to public records and documents, is that
(18:52):
the Fourth US Circuit Court of Appeals came out with
a ringing endorsement of the media's access to records because
WBTS wanted to get access to the video from law
enforcement footage of this incident, and not only would the
law enforcement agencies not turn it over, but the same
judge in this case, Judge Cogburn, ruled a that WBTV
(19:17):
couldn't intervene in the case and also be that the
law enforcement footage would not be turned over even if
they could intervene, because it could threaten the right to
the fair trial that Heather Leverage said that she would
have threatened if this video were released. Fourth Circuit Court
of Appeals disagreed. It actually agreed with Cogburn that WBTV
(19:40):
could not intervene in the case they had no right to,
but the Fourth Circuit also said this video should be
put forward, that this is part of the media and
the public's at right to under the First Amendment to
have access to public documents and public footage of this sort.
The Fourth Circuit also said that Leverage put forward no
(20:06):
evidence at all that this would jeopardize her right to
a fair trial, and if she was going to prevail
on that, she would have to show somehow that this
video footage would somehow threaten her right to a fair trial,
which is an also which is also a constitutional right,
and she had put forward no evidence. All she had
said was this is going to jeopardize my right to
(20:28):
a free trial, and the judge had gone along with it.
So a very interesting development. The decision that came out
from Judge Nicole Berner talked quite a bit about the
public role of the media and why it's important for
accountability and transparency, and basically saying that even if this
(20:50):
was something that could have some sort of impact on
the trial, that the interests of the public and having
access to this were more and the interests of having
a fair trial unless there would be some sort of
convincing evidence that the video could take the trial. Another
sort of sideline was so much of the information about
(21:12):
the shooting is already into public documents that it's hard
to imagine that anything in the video would change what
people already know about this case.
Speaker 1 (21:22):
And Mitch, this is not even the first time that
we've had discussions about WBTV and their attempts in this
case going to court to try and get various pieces
of video surveillance or information about some law enforcement matters
in the Charlotte Metro audience. Mitch, you've been in the
media business for quite some time. Would you pine a
(21:42):
little bit more on the importance for folks, as you noted,
who are supporters of the First Amendment, Folks that want
to hold and make sure that their local governments, which
law enforcement is an extension of that, at least in
some regards, hold them accountable and make sure that this
information is available to the public when situations like this unfold.
Speaker 4 (22:03):
Certainly much of what government does is available to the public,
and that is important because we have to be able
to hold them accountable, and if we don't know what
they're doing, then that makes it harder. And so there
has been debate over the years about this law enforcement
video footage and whether it is public, whether it isn't,
and who should have access to it. I think there
(22:27):
are some lines that you have to put out there
about what should be available, what shouldn't be and if
there is a threat to someone's constitutional right to a
fair trial, that would be a key argument that could
be made about why you wouldn't release the footage in
this case, though there wasn't any evidence put forward about
(22:47):
why this particular footage would jeopardize the right to a
free trial, and I think that's one of the reasons
the Fourth Circuit said, no, this is just a case
of one party in a lawsuit not wanting this information
to be released. That in and of itself is not
enough of a justification. We want to make sure that police,
(23:08):
elected officials, city and county and state bureaucrats are doing
the jobs that they're supposed to be doing. And if
there is a way for them to be hiding things
from us by not making public documents and other types
recordings and that sort of thing available, that there need
to be strict limits on when that is acceptable, because
(23:31):
almost everything that government does ought to be available to
the public so that the public can look at it
and decide whether the government is doing the right job
or not.
Speaker 1 (23:40):
I'm sure some folks are probably looking at another situation that,
of course, has garnered an incredible amount of national attention
over the last month or so, Mitch the murder of
Irena Zaruskan the Charlotte light Rail surveillance footage of that,
with the accused killer now in custody, has been plastered
over international television. Claims, at least to this point, being
(24:01):
made that there could be no fair trial there. So
I'm sure some folks might call this argument being made
in this case from twenty nineteen bogus if some of
this other stuff you're seeing with the Charlotte light rail
situation is unfolding in the public the way that it is.
Speaker 4 (24:15):
Well, and remember that one of the reasons this case
has attracted so much attention. Speaking of the Charlotte lightrail
case is the release of the video. I mean, the
video didn't come out until well after a week of
the events. I kind of feel good for the family
of Arena Zarutska that they had the funeral and took
(24:35):
care of the very private stuff before this really hit
the news wheel. Because had had the funeral taken place
while all of the media frenzy was going on, you know,
they would not have had any sort of peace. But
because of the availability of the video, this escalated from
(24:56):
what was at first seen as kind of a minor
local crime incident into being a major issue that's attracted
certainly attention from our General Assembly and from people all
the way up to President Donald Trump. And so that's
another reason why you would want to make sure that
something that happens on public transportation or involving a government
(25:20):
agency or government agents gets the scrutiny that it deserves.
And this Fourth Circuit opinion, though it is not in
the Arena's Rootski case and probably was not even inspired
at all by the Arenas the Rootska case, does sort
of fit in with this idea of making this information available.
Speaker 2 (25:38):
Now. I don't know all the.
Speaker 4 (25:39):
Details, but I think in the Arenas the Rootska case,
there was some talk at the beginning about whether this
would be released or not. And had it never been released,
I'm certain this case would not have attracted the attention
that it did. And so that's a sign for all
of us about how public access to this type of
information can make a major day.
Speaker 1 (26:00):
Yeah, there was some initial pushback from Katz and the
Charlotte City Council on releasing some of the surveillance video
from that Charlotte light rail. Great points and some great information.
We appreciate the update. This morning. Mitch Kokai from the
John Locke Foundation joins us on the Carolina Journal News Hour.
(26:23):
Good morning again, it's five point fifty two. Welcome back
to the Carolina Journal News Hour, Newstock eleven, ten ninety
nine to three. WBT We continue our coverage this morning
of what was a busy day and what will likely
be a busy day today in Raleigh as lawmakers are back,
as they will do so for the rest of the
year a couple of days towards the end of each month,
to deal with a variety of leftover issues. Of course,
(26:46):
the budget debates still stalled. We continue to track that
coverage as well. However, the priority this morning, and the
priority of lawmakers is dealing with a variety of judicial
issues that exist. This coming in just one month after
the murder of Irena Zarusk, twenty three year old Ukrainian
refugee who was murdered on the Charlotte lightrailback on August
(27:08):
the twenty second, This has prompted outrage not only from
lawmakers in North Carolina, but even comments from prominent national figures,
including the President of the United States in Donald Trump.
This has prompted lawmakers in North Carolina to introduce House
Bill three oh seven, also known as IRENA's Law. This
(27:28):
is a criminal justice reform bill that addresses a variety
of issues, including several discussions about tightening pre trial conditions
for the release of violent offenders, eliminating cashless bail, addressing
the mental health crisis in the criminal justice system, and
(27:48):
removing continued roadblocks to the death penalty in the state
of North Carolina. This went through the Senate Judiciary, Appropriations
and Rules Committee yesterday in Raleigh. It then made its
way to the full North Carolina Senate floor for a vote,
where the final latally was twenty eight to eight. After
(28:09):
most of the Democrat caucus in the North Carolina Senate
determined since they were not going to be successful in
voting down this legislation, they were just going to leave,
which is exactly what they did, prompting that twenty eight
to eight vote. This piece of legislation addresses a lot
of concerns that you've heard about over the last month
or so. It creates a new category of violent offenses
(28:32):
that require GPS monitoring house arrests or secure bond for
those that are accused of those. It also adds committing
a capital felony on public transportation to the list of
aggregating factors that can make a defendant eligible for the
death penalty in North Carolina. Republican leaders say that the
(28:52):
changes are designed to ensure that violent and repeat offenders
remain off the streets while holding masty it's more accountable
for their release decisions and turning our attention to those
magistrates and judges. This legislation would require any judicial official
allowing somebody pre trial release to make written findings of
(29:17):
fact explaining the reason for determining the condition of release
in each and every case. Now, there are some consequences
for legal officials that refuse to do that. Failure by
a judge or magistrate to make those required findings would
be grounds for removal. The bill allows either the Chief
Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court or the chief
(29:39):
District Court Judge, gives them the ability to initiate suspension
proceedings and removal proceedings for those magistrates if they choose
not to follow this legislation, that of course, presuming it
goes into law. So here's how things are going to
shake out over the next couple of days. It is
now officially past the House, how or Senate rather House
(30:01):
Bill three oh seven in a twenty eight to eight vote.
Lawmakers in the North Carolina House are expected back this morning.
It was a skeleton session yesterday in Raleigh, with lawmakers
quickly gaveling in and then gabling out, indicating that there
would be some votes today in the House, the calendar
remains incredibly busy, with still a litany of veto overrides
(30:25):
from earlier this year now House Bill three oh seven
that is Arena's Law. If it is successful and if
the House does have the votes to take it up,
it will follow the process of every other piece of
legislation that we track here on the Carolina Journal News Hour,
passing both chambers of the General Assembly, then making its
way to the Governor's desk for a signature. As this
(30:48):
has become a highly partisan issue, it would seem very
unlikely that current Democrat Governor Josh Stein would sign this legislation,
at least as it is written right now. That will
likely set up the possibility of yet another set of
veto overrides for both chambers to deal with. And remember
the math on that the North Carolina Senate Republicans hold
(31:10):
that veto proof supermajority. In the North Carolina House, Republicans
are just one vote short, meaning that they do need
at least one Democrat to cross the aisle to override
any vetos by the governor. We've seen multiple examples of
that earlier this year, so it is set to be
a busy couple of days in Raleigh. We will have
(31:30):
a continued coverage over at our website throughout the day,
Carolina Journal dot com and the latest coming up for
you tomorrow morning right here on the Carolina Journal News Hour.
That's going to do it for a Tuesday edition. WBT
News is next, followed by Good Morning BT. We're back
with you tomorrow morning, five to six right here on
News Talk eleven, ten and ninety nine to three WBT
It's five oh five and welcome into a Tuesday edition
of the Carolina Journal News Hour, News Talk eleven ten
ninety nine three WBT. I'm Nick Craig. A good morning
to you. As we predicted yesterday, it was a busy day,
a busy Monday in the North Carolina General Assembly, as
lawmakers in both the House and the Senate returned to Raleigh,
(00:29):
as they will do so a couple more times before
the end of the year and wrapping up the long
session at the end of twenty twenty five. Yesterday, September
the twenty second, marking one month after the murder of
Irena Zaruska, a twenty three year old Ukrainian refugee who
was murdered on the Charlotte light rail one month ago yesterday,
(00:51):
and as we have been previewing over the last a
week and a half or so, lawmakers in Raleigh are
moving forth with House Bill three oh seven, also known
as Arena's Law. This is set to address some of
the issues that could have allowed Zaruska to still be
alive today, including dealing with a variety of criminal justice
(01:11):
issues that exist throughout the North Carolina judicial system, as
well as things that are relevant in the wake of
the murder of conservative activists Charlie Kirk, with those both
making and both state national international headlines that several issues
have arisen in state and local government, including tightening pre
trial conditions for the release of violent offenders, eliminating cash
(01:35):
lists bail, addressing the mental health crisis in the criminal
justice system, and removing roadblocks to the death penalty. That's
a big portion of this in North Carolina. The bill
addresses most of those concerns. It creates a new category
of violent offenses, requires GPS monitoring house arrests or secured
(01:55):
bond for those accused, and adds as well as adding
a capital of punishments or capital felonies on public transportation
to the list of aggregating factors that make it defendant
eligible for the death penalty. Republican leaders say these changes
are designed to ensure that violent repeat offenders remain off
(02:17):
the streets while holding magistrates and judges more accountable for
released decisions that they might make. Senator Danny Britt, who
is the Republican out of Hope County, introduced this legislation
in the Senate Judiciary Committee, where it was first introduced
in Raleigh yesterday. This is how the Senator from Hope
County described the legislation.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
Thank you, mister Chairman and members.
Speaker 3 (02:41):
This bill is largely in response to the incident that
happened in Mecklenburg County on the Charlotte mass Transit system.
And this is in House built three zero seven what
has been called IRENA's Law. What this deals with is
pre trial release conditions under various certain circumstances. Creates, or
it basically does a way with written promises to appear.
(03:04):
It creates a new concept of what would be considered
a violent offense. In circumstances where there is a violent offense,
there would be a rebuttable presumption that no pre trial
released would be granted based on a danger analysis. If
the judicial official does determine pre trial release is appropriate,
the following would apply. First arrest, the only option is
either a secure bond or house arrest with monitoring. Second
(03:27):
or subsequent only option is house arrest with monitoring. If
a defendant has been convicted of three or more offenses
Class one Misterman or higher within the ten years prior
to then the only option is secured bond along with
house arrest with monitoring. Many counties do not already have
the GPS monitoring system within their pre trial release or
(03:47):
their shares department. This would allow for individuals to our
counties who do not have those systems established to contract
with a private vendor, by which the defender would pay
for that ankle monitoring device that they were placed out
on pre trial release with a monitor. Law is clarified
to ensure that judicial official reviews and considers defendan's criminal
(04:10):
history before setting conditions of pre trial release. Laws modified
so that judicial official must make written findings of fact
explaining the reasons why the official determined the conditions of release.
In each case. If a judge or magistrate fails to
make these written findings, it would be ground for suspension.
It would allow the Chief Justice, Supreme Court or Chief
(04:30):
District Court judge to initiate suspension proceedings for magistrates. Right now,
only a chief district Court judge could suspend. As for
mental health evaluations, it creates a protocol under which judicial
official will be required to order a mental health evaluation
if the defendis charge with a violent offense and has
been involuntarily committed within the last three years, or the
defendant's charged with any offense and judicial official has costs
(04:53):
to believe the defendant of suffering from a mental health crisis.
The Collaboratory will study the intersection of mental health and
the system in North Carolina's We all realize that there
is a connection. There's more to do on this topic.
We had a rather short window to do what we
did in this bill here. We believe this does make
North Carolina safer and does help to promote law and
(05:14):
order and state of North Carolina, but we do have
more work to do on involuntary commitments and mental health
in the space.
Speaker 2 (05:20):
Of the criminal justice system.
Speaker 3 (05:22):
This also would modify laws related to aggravating factors. When
someone is on trial for first three murder, prior to
a decision that the state is going to precede capital,
one of the arguments they must make to the court
or that certain aggravating factors exists.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
To be able to have the case declared capital.
Speaker 3 (05:38):
This ads an aggravating factor that if the incident took
place on mass transit, that would be considered an aggravating
factor by which Rule twenty four could be granted. It
also modifies death penalty proceedings that appeals and post convictions
mrs must be heard within twenty four months of the
date they have been filed. The oldest appeal currently is
(06:01):
a nineteen eighty five murder case in the say.
Speaker 2 (06:03):
Of North Carolina.
Speaker 3 (06:05):
And these murder appeals are simply going on too long
without a family ever seeing justice for their loved one,
and this is an effort to try to speed these up.
Any case that is already penning appeal, if appeal has
already been filed.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
They'll have twenty four months as well.
Speaker 3 (06:23):
From passage of this law, there was a modification in
what was in the original draft that we made. Current
law requires defendants lack of capacity to proceed the court
dismiss charges. This occurs in any time the defendants will
not regain capacity defendant has been incarcerated beyond maximum sentence
for the underlying sentence or ten years for any failony. Essentially,
if someone's declared it incompetent, as longest we can hold
(06:45):
them if they are violent is up to ten years.
This provides a process for after that ten year period,
the district attorney can have the individual viewed again and
determined rather not further involuntary commitment is necessary.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
That Senator Danny Britt in Raleigh yesterday, more particularly the
Senate Judiciary Committee describing some of the details of House
Built three oh seven again the short name on that
arena's law. One of the big things that came up
with throughout discussion yesterday in Raleigh was the death penalty. Now,
there should not be a surprise or secret to anybody.
(07:19):
We heard back in a press conference a couple of
weeks ago, which did include the leader of the North
Carolina Senate in Phil Berger and the leader of the
North Carolina House in Deston Hall, that lawmakers would move
forward to essentially reinstate the death penalty in North Carolina.
And that is exactly one of the things added to
House Built three oh seven. It removes roadblocks that have
(07:40):
hindered the death penalty in North Carolina for close to
twenty years. That's according to a press release from Speaker Deston'
Deston Hall's office. Currently, the death penalty appeal can sit indefinitely.
Any appeal or motion filed more than twenty four months
ago now must be scheduled for a hearing date no
later than December of twenty twenty six, with a hearing
(08:02):
taking place on or before December twenty twenty seven, as
required by this bill. For death penalty cases, hearings must
be held in the county in which the offender was
originally convicted. Previously, all of those hearings took place in Raleigh,
our state capital. Lawmakers said, in an attempt to allow
to streamline this process to some extent, that the whole group,
(08:26):
including the individual in question, does not have to travel
to the state capitol, which can be a major burden
on local prosecutors, law enforcement, and jails, as the transferring
of that individual is a pretty heavy lift. We've got
some additional details from the Senate floor. It was a
busy evening as lawmakers didn't wrap up until well after
seven pm last night debating this legislation. Will continue the
(08:49):
details coming up here in just a few minutes as
we roll on with the Carolina Journal News Hour. It's
twenty one minutes past the hour. Welcome back to the
Carolina Journal News our newstock eleven, ten ninety nine to
three WBT. We are continuing our coverage this morning of
a busy day in Raleigh yesterday for the North Carolina
(09:13):
General Assembly. As lawmakers through the rest of the year
will be back for a couple of days at the
end of each month, leading all the way up until
the new year House spill three to seven. It was
the big topic of discussion yesterday, at least on the
Senate side where all of the activity happened. The House
did gavel in at noon in a skeleton session. Just
(09:35):
a couple of individuals, including Representative Jared Lowry, presiding over
the House talked about him yesterday as he announced that
he would be leaving the General Assembly at the end
of October to take a job in Washington, d C.
With the Trump administration. It's not immediately clear, but rumor
has it that the full House will be back, and
it's some form more fashion today. So as we look
(09:56):
at Housepill three oh seven, this is IRENA's law. It
was went through all of the process in the Senate yesterday,
and this is a wide sweeping bill, more than seventeen pages,
dealing with a variety of issues, including pre trial release
and documents that need to be filed by magistrates or
judges when they allow violent or repeat offenders a pre
(10:19):
trial release, GPS, monitoring house arrests or secured bond for
those accused of violent offenses. Which there's been some new
additions to that, some other things including committing a capital
felony on public transit that has been added to the
list of aggravated factors that can make a defendant eligible
(10:40):
for the death penalty, and a variety of other issues.
One of the big topics of debate and what really
slowed down the North Carolina Senate last night, was discussions
on reinstituting or essentially allowing the death penalty to continue
in North Carolina. It has been on the books and
it is illegal in the state as a form of punishment. However,
(11:01):
that process has essentially been blocked for the last twenty
years due to an appeal process in which the appeal
can set sit indefinitely and that has been blocking and
essentially but a major roadblock in place for the death penalty.
The Senate did adopt several amendments introduced, including an amendment
(11:22):
introduced by Senate Leader Phil Berger that would establish lethal
injection as the primary default method of execution in the
state of North Carolina. This was not without controversy from Democrats.
Senator Greg Meyer, the Democrat out of Caswell County, raised
several concerns about alternative methods of execution with the death
(11:43):
penalty or capital punishment, including the electric chair and firing squad,
neither of which were introduced to as amendments. To to
avoid additional delays, at Burger's amendment directs the Department of
Adult Corrections to implement alternative execution methods if a court
order or other administrative barrier prevents lethal injection. It also
(12:06):
imposes deadlines for adopting new methods to ensure that the
Stegin administration is held accountable. And finally, the amendment stipulates
that any case in which a trial court rules a
method of execution unconstitutional, it may be appealed directly to
the North Carolina Supreme Court for some expedition to take
(12:27):
place there. Senate Leader Phil Berger said in a press
release following the vote, quote, for nearly two decades, judicial
and administrative roadblocks have stopped true justice for victims, and
it's time for that to end. During my time in
the Senate, I've worked to find ways to restart the
death penalty, but judges, activist doctors, and weak on crime
(12:50):
politicians have placed hurdle after hurdle in the way. I
hope we can finally get justice for victims' families and
for the people of North Carolina. House Bill three oh seven,
also known as IRENA's Law, would also classify committing a
capital felony against a victim using public transportation as an
(13:10):
aggravating factor in death penalty cases. This provision ensures that
prosecutors can seek and courts can impose the death penalty
without hesitation in cases similar to the one that happened
just over one month ago that claimed the life of
twenty three year old Irena Zaruska. Additionally, the bill would
clarify that judicial officials must review and consider a defendant's
(13:35):
criminal history before setting pre trial release conditions. It would
also require the judicial official to make written findings a
fact explaining the reason for determining that that pre trial
released condition was justified. In each and every case, failure
by a judge or magistrate to make these required findings
(13:57):
would in fact, be grounds for removal. The bill further
allows the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court or the
chief District Court judge to initiate suspension proceedings for magistrates
that do not follow the process laid out in House
three TOZH seven, And finally, it directs the North Carolina
Collaboratory to study the intersection of mental health and the
(14:20):
justice system in North Carolina for both adults and juveniles,
examine the availability of house arrests as a condition of
pre trial release, and evaluate alternative methods of execution beyond
those currently authorized in North Carolina. The Collaboratory would be
required to have a preliminary draft to the General Assembly
(14:41):
by next year and a final study sometime in twenty
twenty seven. With all of that set and as I noted,
this went will long into the night, well past seven
pm as lawmakers gabbled in Around noon yesterday, the final
passage of IRENA's law House Bill three zero EVAN was
twenty eight to eight. This is after multon the vast
(15:04):
majority of Democrat lawmakers in the Senate, because they were
incapable of were unable rather to get their way on
any of their amendments, decided to just walk out of
the chamber and not vote either way on the legislation.
So it did pass twenty eight to eight, and now
it moves over to the North Carolina House where it
has officially been calendared for this morning, September the twenty third.
(15:28):
Again not immediately clear how quickly that legislation will be
taken up by the North Carolina House. However, it is
something that lawmakers promised, including House Speaker Destin Hall in
that press conference with Phil Berger back a few weeks ago,
that they would be taking up in Raleigh. So we
will watch what happens in the House, and then, of course,
(15:49):
following any other law passed in North Carolina or any
other legislation, I should say, it will make its way
to the Governor's desk if successful in the House, where
he will likely veto it, and it will have to
come back to the General Assembly for a series of
veto overrides. We will continue to track its progress throughout
the day today over on our website Carolina Journal dot com,
(16:11):
and of course we'll have the latest details coming up
for you tomorrow morning right here on the Carolina Journal
News Hour. It's five thirty five. Welcome back to the
Carolina Journal News Hour. News Stock eleven ten ninety nine
to three WBT. A search warrant gone wrong back in
(16:32):
twenty nineteen has been in the news over the last
couple of years at a variety of legal challenges. We
do have an update this morning to walk us through
some of those details. Mitch Koki of the John Locke
Foundation joins us on the Carolina Journal News Hour twenty nineteen. Mitch,
six years or so ago, a story out of Mecklenburg
County including a search warrant, law enforcement officers being shot.
(16:54):
A lot of information going on here. What's the latest
that you're tracking out of the courts.
Speaker 4 (16:59):
Yes, this was an incident that really arose out of
a law operation that certainly went sideways. A task force
involving multiple law enforcement officers from multiple departments was trying
to serve a search warrant on a suspect who was
accused of trafficking methanthhetamine. But what happened was when the
law officers arrived, there was some chaos that ensued, some
(17:24):
shooting that took place, and one of the officers, a
fellow named Clarence Belton, who was a Gastonian police officer,
got shot as he was trying to get away. He
got shot some more, and though he survived, he suffered
some very long lasting serious injuries that prevented him from
continuing his work in law enforcement, and so he sued.
(17:46):
One of the fellow officers, a woman named Heather Loveridge
from the Charlotte Meckleburg Police Department along with the City
of Charlotte, saying that there was a legal liability for
his injuries. You know, this case has been moving through
federal courts now for several years, and there was a
ruling back in February from the Fourth US Circuit Court
(18:08):
of Appeals that said that the trial judge was going
to have to take another look at whether Heather Leveridge
would get immunity in the case. The judge said no immunity,
that the case could go forward, but the Fourth Circuit,
in a unanimous ruling earlier this year, said the judge
didn't go through the specific analysis that's required to ensure
(18:29):
whether immunity is or is not possible in this case.
So the judge in the case, Max Cogburn, has to
go back and do the analysis to decide whether there's
going to be immunity. So that's one piece of this case.
But the most recent development, which should be very interesting
to people who are fans of the First Amendment and
to media access to public records and documents, is that
(18:52):
the Fourth US Circuit Court of Appeals came out with
a ringing endorsement of the media's access to records because
WBTS wanted to get access to the video from law
enforcement footage of this incident, and not only would the
law enforcement agencies not turn it over, but the same
judge in this case, Judge Cogburn, ruled a that WBTV
(19:17):
couldn't intervene in the case and also be that the
law enforcement footage would not be turned over even if
they could intervene, because it could threaten the right to
the fair trial that Heather Leverage said that she would
have threatened if this video were released. Fourth Circuit Court
of Appeals disagreed. It actually agreed with Cogburn that WBTV
(19:40):
could not intervene in the case they had no right to,
but the Fourth Circuit also said this video should be
put forward, that this is part of the media and
the public's at right to under the First Amendment to
have access to public documents and public footage of this sort.
The Fourth Circuit also said that Leverage put forward no
(20:06):
evidence at all that this would jeopardize her right to
a fair trial, and if she was going to prevail
on that, she would have to show somehow that this
video footage would somehow threaten her right to a fair trial,
which is an also which is also a constitutional right,
and she had put forward no evidence. All she had
said was this is going to jeopardize my right to
(20:28):
a free trial, and the judge had gone along with it.
So a very interesting development. The decision that came out
from Judge Nicole Berner talked quite a bit about the
public role of the media and why it's important for
accountability and transparency, and basically saying that even if this
(20:50):
was something that could have some sort of impact on
the trial, that the interests of the public and having
access to this were more and the interests of having
a fair trial unless there would be some sort of
convincing evidence that the video could take the trial. Another
sort of sideline was so much of the information about
(21:12):
the shooting is already into public documents that it's hard
to imagine that anything in the video would change what
people already know about this case.
Speaker 1 (21:22):
And Mitch, this is not even the first time that
we've had discussions about WBTV and their attempts in this
case going to court to try and get various pieces
of video surveillance or information about some law enforcement matters
in the Charlotte Metro audience. Mitch, you've been in the
media business for quite some time. Would you pine a
(21:42):
little bit more on the importance for folks, as you noted,
who are supporters of the First Amendment, Folks that want
to hold and make sure that their local governments, which
law enforcement is an extension of that, at least in
some regards, hold them accountable and make sure that this
information is available to the public when situations like this unfold.
Speaker 4 (22:03):
Certainly much of what government does is available to the public,
and that is important because we have to be able
to hold them accountable, and if we don't know what
they're doing, then that makes it harder. And so there
has been debate over the years about this law enforcement
video footage and whether it is public, whether it isn't,
and who should have access to it. I think there
(22:27):
are some lines that you have to put out there
about what should be available, what shouldn't be and if
there is a threat to someone's constitutional right to a
fair trial, that would be a key argument that could
be made about why you wouldn't release the footage in
this case, though there wasn't any evidence put forward about
(22:47):
why this particular footage would jeopardize the right to a
free trial, and I think that's one of the reasons
the Fourth Circuit said, no, this is just a case
of one party in a lawsuit not wanting this information
to be released. That in and of itself is not
enough of a justification. We want to make sure that police,
(23:08):
elected officials, city and county and state bureaucrats are doing
the jobs that they're supposed to be doing. And if
there is a way for them to be hiding things
from us by not making public documents and other types
recordings and that sort of thing available, that there need
to be strict limits on when that is acceptable, because
(23:31):
almost everything that government does ought to be available to
the public so that the public can look at it
and decide whether the government is doing the right job
or not.
Speaker 1 (23:40):
I'm sure some folks are probably looking at another situation that,
of course, has garnered an incredible amount of national attention
over the last month or so, Mitch the murder of
Irena Zaruskan the Charlotte light Rail surveillance footage of that,
with the accused killer now in custody, has been plastered
over international television. Claims, at least to this point, being
(24:01):
made that there could be no fair trial there. So
I'm sure some folks might call this argument being made
in this case from twenty nineteen bogus if some of
this other stuff you're seeing with the Charlotte light rail
situation is unfolding in the public the way that it is.
Speaker 4 (24:15):
Well, and remember that one of the reasons this case
has attracted so much attention. Speaking of the Charlotte lightrail
case is the release of the video. I mean, the
video didn't come out until well after a week of
the events. I kind of feel good for the family
of Arena Zarutska that they had the funeral and took
(24:35):
care of the very private stuff before this really hit
the news wheel. Because had had the funeral taken place
while all of the media frenzy was going on, you know,
they would not have had any sort of peace. But
because of the availability of the video, this escalated from
(24:56):
what was at first seen as kind of a minor
local crime incident into being a major issue that's attracted
certainly attention from our General Assembly and from people all
the way up to President Donald Trump. And so that's
another reason why you would want to make sure that
something that happens on public transportation or involving a government
(25:20):
agency or government agents gets the scrutiny that it deserves.
And this Fourth Circuit opinion, though it is not in
the Arena's Rootski case and probably was not even inspired
at all by the Arenas the Rootska case, does sort
of fit in with this idea of making this information available.
Speaker 2 (25:38):
Now. I don't know all the.
Speaker 4 (25:39):
Details, but I think in the Arenas the Rootska case,
there was some talk at the beginning about whether this
would be released or not. And had it never been released,
I'm certain this case would not have attracted the attention
that it did. And so that's a sign for all
of us about how public access to this type of
information can make a major day.
Speaker 1 (26:00):
Yeah, there was some initial pushback from Katz and the
Charlotte City Council on releasing some of the surveillance video
from that Charlotte light rail. Great points and some great information.
We appreciate the update. This morning. Mitch Kokai from the
John Locke Foundation joins us on the Carolina Journal News Hour.
(26:23):
Good morning again, it's five point fifty two. Welcome back
to the Carolina Journal News Hour, Newstock eleven, ten ninety
nine to three. WBT We continue our coverage this morning
of what was a busy day and what will likely
be a busy day today in Raleigh as lawmakers are back,
as they will do so for the rest of the
year a couple of days towards the end of each month,
to deal with a variety of leftover issues. Of course,
(26:46):
the budget debates still stalled. We continue to track that
coverage as well. However, the priority this morning, and the
priority of lawmakers is dealing with a variety of judicial
issues that exist. This coming in just one month after
the murder of Irena Zarusk, twenty three year old Ukrainian
refugee who was murdered on the Charlotte lightrailback on August
(27:08):
the twenty second, This has prompted outrage not only from
lawmakers in North Carolina, but even comments from prominent national figures,
including the President of the United States in Donald Trump.
This has prompted lawmakers in North Carolina to introduce House
Bill three oh seven, also known as IRENA's Law. This
(27:28):
is a criminal justice reform bill that addresses a variety
of issues, including several discussions about tightening pre trial conditions
for the release of violent offenders, eliminating cashless bail, addressing
the mental health crisis in the criminal justice system, and
(27:48):
removing continued roadblocks to the death penalty in the state
of North Carolina. This went through the Senate Judiciary, Appropriations
and Rules Committee yesterday in Raleigh. It then made its
way to the full North Carolina Senate floor for a vote,
where the final latally was twenty eight to eight. After
(28:09):
most of the Democrat caucus in the North Carolina Senate
determined since they were not going to be successful in
voting down this legislation, they were just going to leave,
which is exactly what they did, prompting that twenty eight
to eight vote. This piece of legislation addresses a lot
of concerns that you've heard about over the last month
or so. It creates a new category of violent offenses
(28:32):
that require GPS monitoring house arrests or secure bond for
those that are accused of those. It also adds committing
a capital felony on public transportation to the list of
aggregating factors that can make a defendant eligible for the
death penalty in North Carolina. Republican leaders say that the
(28:52):
changes are designed to ensure that violent and repeat offenders
remain off the streets while holding masty it's more accountable
for their release decisions and turning our attention to those
magistrates and judges. This legislation would require any judicial official
allowing somebody pre trial release to make written findings of
(29:17):
fact explaining the reason for determining the condition of release
in each and every case. Now, there are some consequences
for legal officials that refuse to do that. Failure by
a judge or magistrate to make those required findings would
be grounds for removal. The bill allows either the Chief
Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court or the chief
(29:39):
District Court Judge, gives them the ability to initiate suspension
proceedings and removal proceedings for those magistrates if they choose
not to follow this legislation, that of course, presuming it
goes into law. So here's how things are going to
shake out over the next couple of days. It is
now officially past the House, how or Senate rather House
(30:01):
Bill three oh seven in a twenty eight to eight vote.
Lawmakers in the North Carolina House are expected back this morning.
It was a skeleton session yesterday in Raleigh, with lawmakers
quickly gaveling in and then gabling out, indicating that there
would be some votes today in the House, the calendar
remains incredibly busy, with still a litany of veto overrides
(30:25):
from earlier this year now House Bill three oh seven
that is Arena's Law. If it is successful and if
the House does have the votes to take it up,
it will follow the process of every other piece of
legislation that we track here on the Carolina Journal News Hour,
passing both chambers of the General Assembly, then making its
way to the Governor's desk for a signature. As this
(30:48):
has become a highly partisan issue, it would seem very
unlikely that current Democrat Governor Josh Stein would sign this legislation,
at least as it is written right now. That will
likely set up the possibility of yet another set of
veto overrides for both chambers to deal with. And remember
the math on that the North Carolina Senate Republicans hold
(31:10):
that veto proof supermajority. In the North Carolina House, Republicans
are just one vote short, meaning that they do need
at least one Democrat to cross the aisle to override
any vetos by the governor. We've seen multiple examples of
that earlier this year, so it is set to be
a busy couple of days in Raleigh. We will have
(31:30):
a continued coverage over at our website throughout the day,
Carolina Journal dot com and the latest coming up for
you tomorrow morning right here on the Carolina Journal News Hour.
That's going to do it for a Tuesday edition. WBT
News is next, followed by Good Morning BT. We're back
with you tomorrow morning, five to six right here on
News Talk eleven, ten and ninety nine to three WBT
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.